Why the Japanese didnt' invade the mainland during WWII - Page 3

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why the Japanese didnt' invade the mainland during WWII (Page 3 of 4)

Posted: 2/24/2012 7:57:38 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:Agreed.

Plus, Pearl harbor was a failure. They did not destroy any of the real strategic assets we had there.

An armed invasion of the mainland US?

My argument would be that, other than the oil tanks and repair facilities, the destruction of the Pacific battle line made carriers the pre-eminent strike weapon, not because they were inherently superior to the battleship, but simply because they were available.

However, the rapid pace of air and carrier technology did make the battleship vulnerable to land and carrier based air. This vulnerability wasn't truely addressed until the adoption of the proximity fuse, and later the surface to air missile. By then, the world went with aviation and didn't look back.

Carriers themselves proved vulnerable to heavy surface ships when caught without their own heavy ships as escorts - the most powerful naval order of battle was a mix of both - at least in WWII. Either alone were vulnerable.

Well, the oil tanks, ammo dumps, and drydocks were the first and foremost strategic assets. Carriers number 2, Subs number 3, other ships number 4. On top of only destroying number 4, they didn't even get that right, sinking the ships in shallow water where they could be re-floated easily, and most were by mid-1942. During which time they also made us develop doctrine using the carrier as the pre-eminient power projection force.

Oh, and they pissed off America so much that we made them glow in the dark. A brilliant strategic plan, right there.

Pearl harbor was a clusterfuck of unmitigated proportion for the Japanese.

Posted: 2/24/2012 7:59:41 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

<snip>
This. Logistics, logistics, logistics. The Japanese had a hard enough time keeping hold of Indochina, Manchuria, the Phillipines, and the various Pacific Islands. They simply didn't have the troops or ships to invade and hold any part of the US.

Agreed.
Plus, Pearl harbor was a failure. They did not destroy any of the real strategic assets we had there.
An armed invasion of the mainland US?

The bold part is interesting to consider.
If they had ignored the battleships and instead bombed the oil tank farm, the drydocks, and the rest of the naval base infrastructure it's possible that the fleet would have had to retreat to the West Coast. This might have left Hawaii vulnerable to invasion.
I don't think that would have been enough of a stepping stone to attack the mainland, but it would have been a necessary first step.
There was also some concern that building the AlCan highway was a mistake-highways work in both directions.
Take Hawaii, invade via Alaska? Not very likely but that's the only scenario I can come up with that would have any chance of success.
They wouldn't have been able to take the entire US and would ultimately have been doomed due to logistics as mentioned before, anyway.
It's fun to speculate though.

They still did not have anywhere near the resources to invade CONUS. No way, no how. But if they had pushed us off of Hawaii, they would have been in a position, possibly, to sue for an early peace. Of course, that also would have required that they had delivered the declaration of war on time.

Posted: 2/24/2012 8:03:20 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
The same geniuses who circulate e-mail suggesting the US had troops fighting Germany when Pearl harbor was invaded always seem to be the same ones who share the silly anecdotes about how dumb the "liberals" are, or how kids today aren't as educated about things as us older folks.

Are you disputing the fact that liberals are dumb?

Maybe dumb is a harsh word, but most are certainly misguided. Most of the ones in power are downright malicious with the way they are running the country into the ground however.

Posted: 2/24/2012 8:43:46 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Remember, we hgad a 2 million man army and war ships... All fighting the Germans.

So we were at war with Germany before they declared war on us?

Actually, yes. The United States was escorting merchant ships half-way to Great Britain, and engaging in anti-submarine warfare against German U-boats.

1. At 10:30 on 26 May, 1941 a "British" Catalina piloted by Ensign Leonard B. Smith of the US Navy located Bismarck, some 690 nmi (1,280 km; 790 mi) northwest of Brest. Re-aquiring the Biz enabled the torpedo attack that eventually resulted in her destruction, rather than her safe return to Brest.

2. USS Greer, September 4, 1941: shadowed a U-boat identified by an British airplane and reported its postition to the Brits,

3. USS Kearny, October 14, 1941: steamed to the relief of a convoy being torn apart by a wolfpack, depth-charged U-boats and got torpedoed, did not sink).

4. USS Reuben James (October 23, 1941 - interposed itself between an ammuntiton ship in convoy HX 156 and the known location of a U-boat wolf pack. Torpedoed and sunk with loss of 115 hands.

Sometimes with a thin veil of deniability - sometimes not, but we were engaging in acts of war against Germany and Japan well before Pearl Harbor. I don't know about Italy.

Posted: 2/24/2012 8:44:41 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
An armoured force can't be stopped by small arms fire. Hunters aren't soldiers.

The fuel, food, and ammo trucks darn sure can be.

Posted: 2/24/2012 8:51:02 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The same geniuses who circulate e-mail suggesting the US had troops fighting Germany when Pearl harbor was invaded always seem to be the same ones who share the silly anecdotes about how dumb the "liberals" are, or how kids today aren't as educated about things as us older folks.

Are you disputing the fact that liberals are dumb?

Maybe dumb is a harsh word, but most are certainly misguided. Most of the ones in power are downright malicious with the way they are running the country into the ground however.

I would never dispute the fact that most people are dumb. I just think its funny when dumb people try so hard to paint others as dumb, to include clinging to ridiculous urban legends and anecdotes to confirm a magical world view.

Posted: 2/24/2012 8:55:17 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Remember, we hgad a 2 million man army and war ships... All fighting the Germans.

So we were at war with Germany before they declared war on us?

Actually, yes. The United States was escorting merchant ships half-way to Great Britain, and engaging in anti-submarine warfare against German U-boats.

1. At 10:30 on 26 May, 1941 a "British" Catalina piloted by Ensign Leonard B. Smith of the US Navy located Bismarck, some 690 nmi (1,280 km; 790 mi) northwest of Brest. Re-aquiring the Biz enabled the torpedo attack that eventually resulted in her destruction, rather than her safe return to Brest.

2. USS Greer, September 4, 1941: shadowed a U-boat identified by an British airplane and reported its postition to the Brits,

3. USS Kearny, October 14, 1941: steamed to the relief of a convoy being torn apart by a wolfpack, depth-charged U-boats and got torpedoed, did not sink).

4. USS Reuben James (October 23, 1941 - interposed itself between an ammuntiton ship in convoy HX 156 and the known location of a U-boat wolf pack. Torpedoed and sunk with loss of 115 hands.

Sometimes with a thin veil of deniability - sometimes not, but we were engaging in acts of war against Germany and Japan well before Pearl Harbor. I don't know about Italy.

We certainly didn't have 2 million men fighting the Germans on December 6th, 1941.

Posted: 2/24/2012 8:55:33 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
An armoured force can't be stopped by small arms fire. Hunters aren't soldiers.

The fuel, food, and ammo trucks darn sure can be.

Hunters wouldn't pose a major threat against the logistics of an invading army. IEDs would pose a far greater threat as I have already stated over and over again in this thread.

Posted: 2/24/2012 8:56:22 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:Well, the oil tanks, ammo dumps, and drydocks were the first and foremost strategic assets.

Not according to Yamamoto or the naval staff: "He (Yamamoto) believed battleships possessed "intangible political effects internationally as a symbol of naval power." Sinking them, in tandem with capturing the Philippines, would so shock and demoralize the American people that their will to continue the war would sink along with the shattered battlewagons. The Japanese Naval General Staff wanted to sink battleships, too, but for a different reason: they calculated (from some faulty initial assumptions) that crippling four of the eight battleships in port would prevent the Pacific Fleet from sailing to relieve the Philippines for six months, allowing the Japanese to secure the flank of their southern advance.

Carriers number 2, Subs number 3, other ships number 4. On top of only destroying number 4, they didn't even get that right, sinking the ships in shallow water where they could be re-floated easily, and most were by mid-1942.

"Re-floated" =/= "usable". The Japanese goal was to put the battleship line out of commission to prevent it from interfereing with their activity in Asia or trying to implement 'War Plan Orange" (which was doubtlessly compromised by this time) and relieve the Phillipines. To do that, they only needed the BBs out of commission for 12 months or so, and they pretty much got that. Oklahoma never was repaired at all.

During which time they also made us develop doctrine using the carrier as the pre-eminient power projection force.

Making a virtue out of a vice.

Oh, and they pissed off America so much that we made them glow in the dark. A brilliant strategic plan, right there.

Pearl harbor was a clusterfuck of unmitigated proportion for the Japanese.

Pearl Harbor did exactly what Yamamoto and the IJN staff wanted it to do. Their failure was one of psychology, as you point out, rather than execution.

Posted: 2/24/2012 8:57:51 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
.............Explanation: Japan couldn't even invade Hawaii, much less the mainland U.S. To move and support enough troops to conquer the Hawaiian Islands, would have required the continuous commitment of 100 to 115 merchant ships - just doing that. Japan couldn't spare enought for that, which is one reason why Pearl Harbor was just a raid.

The Japanese were not accomplished at amphibious landings.

Consider Wake Island.

The Japanese tended to avoid invading heavily defended enemy beach heads, because of the prohibitively high costs involved in taking them, a la Wake Island.

During the second invasion attempt, US Marines shot to pieces two old, Japanese Destroyers that were tasked with getting their troops ashore by running them aground on the beach. The destroyers made it ashore to land their troops, but they never sailed again. Every Japanese soldier who came ashore on Wilkes Island was killed by the Marine defenders and before Wake atoll was surrendered, the Japanese had suffered at least 50% casualties..

They also tended to use the cover of darkness to mask their invasion intentions for the same reason. Somewhere I have a Japanese TM on night tactics. I hope it wasn't on my old Dell that died.*

Also the Japanese had little to no experience in softening up a well defended beach head with off-shore naval bombardments, nor did they have any ship to shore communications with which to call in artillery support from friendly warships off shore. They lacked the years of experience the US Marines gained through countless live and practice invasion beach landings throughout the lean years of the 1920's and 30's that soon became a science for them.

I believe the that the landing on Kota Bharu at the start of the Malaya campaign was against a heavily defended beach. Kota Bharu was where the British expected initial Japanese landings, but the other landings in Thailand were unopposed.

Singapore was taken via the "back door."

*Found it!

TRAINING IN NIGHT MOVEMENTS

BASED ON ACTUAL EXPERIENCES IN WAR

TRANSLATED FROM THE JAPANESE

By First Lieutenant C. BURNETT, Fourtk Cavalry

U. S. CAVALRY ASSOCIATION
Fort Leaven worth, Kansas

1914

COPYRIGHT, IQI 4 , BY
U. S. CAVALRY ASSOCIATION.

KETCHESON PRINTING CO.,
LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS.

If anyone is interested I could PDF it and send it to you.

Posted: 2/24/2012 8:58:12 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

We certainly didn't have 2 million men fighting the Germans on December 6th, 1941.

No, but we certainly has U.S. naval forces waging war on them.

Posted: 2/24/2012 8:59:41 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
An armoured force can't be stopped by small arms fire. Hunters aren't soldiers.

The fuel, food, and ammo trucks darn sure can be.

Hunters wouldn't pose a major threat against the logistics of an invading army. IEDs would pose a far greater threat as I have already stated over and over again in this thread.

I would submit the experiences of the Germans against partisans in France and Russia argues otherwise. Look at how a two man sniper team terrorized and partially shut down Washington D.C. for a while.

Posted: 2/24/2012 9:01:01 AM EDT

[#13]

That's a great story that I've seen many times, and there is certainly some truth to it, however, American hunters taking pot shots pales in comparison to the logistical issues that the Japanese would have faced to support any kind of invasion of the US Mainland. In fact, they didn't even feel that they could take Hawaii with what they had on hand at the time, though they certainly might have considered doing it at some point. Japan wanted complete control of Asia and the Western Pacific, not to invade the U. S.

Posted: 2/24/2012 9:05:42 AM EDT

[#14]

The Japs invaded Wake island about the same time they attacked Pearl Harbor.

There is actually a good wartime movie about Wake island. There are some interesting facts about the movie, and one of them is this: the movie didn't show to what extent the Marines and civilian contractors kicked Jap ass. That is because after the last plane out, we didn't know what happened until after the war.

The first Jap invasion force was wiped out. They had to send in a second invasion to take the island. The Japs were very surprized at their loses, how well the Marines fought, and how well armed the Marines were.

I think the Japs would have had significant trouble invading Oahu, let alone the mainland. And yes, armed civilians would play into that as well.

Posted: 2/24/2012 9:09:31 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Stopped by my dads house the other day and he handed me some info a guy he works with gave him, don't know the accuracy or source of the info but thought in was interesting non the less. It a little long so hang in there. Here it goes.

"True story and most people will never know it. After the Japanese decimated our fleet in Pearl Harbor Dec. 7, 1941, They could have sent their troop ships and carriers directly to California to finish what they started. The prediction from our Chief of Staff was we would not be able to stop a massive invasion until they reached the Mississippi River. Remember, we hgad a 2 million man army and war ships... All fighting the Germans.

So. why did they not invade?

After the war, the remaining Japanese gernerals and admirals were asked that question. Their answer....They know that almost every home had guns and the Americans knew how to use them.. The world's largest army....America's hunters! I had never thought about this....

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin...Allow me to restate that number. Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the 8th largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran...

More than France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That numbers pales in comparasion to 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virgina and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those 4 states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

The Point? America will forever b e safe from foregin invasion with that kind of home grown firepower. Hunting...it';s not just a way to fill the freezers. It's a matter of national security. That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed. Food for thought when next we consider gun control."

because there would have been a rifleman behind every blade of grass. to paraphrase admiral yamamoto.

Posted: 2/24/2012 9:10:09 AM EDT

[#16]

There are some good inputs to this thread.

I must remember that the Japanese army was slowly being bled to death in China. Remember, they had been fighting there for several years prior to the outbreak of hostilities with us. That was becoming their Stalingrad to a degree. Also, as pointed out already, the logistics to do this were just not there and a mainland invasion of our country was not really a primary war aim of theirs.

The atomic bomb.....made in America......tested in Japan.

IN MEMORY OF THE MEN ON THE USS ARIZONA ON DECEMBER 7, 1941.

Posted: 2/24/2012 9:19:51 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
An armoured force can't be stopped by small arms fire. Hunters aren't soldiers.

The Japs had a pathetic armored force. They had no armored troop transports, and would not be able to advance their tanks without infantry support.

And their pathetic tanks would have been easier to destroy by improvised weapons then more advanced tanks used by other nations later in the war.

The US tradition of an armed public would have been a big advantage for the US. We have historically been able to quickly raise large, reasonably competent armies in part due to all those "aren't soldiers" you are talking about. Santa Anna's professional army was defeated by outnumbered "not soldiers", and in the Spanish American War our army went from 27k men to over 100k in about 6 months. Those 100k were not crack troops equal to the best professionals, but they were competent enough and were actually close to the pros in performance.

Sweden isn't the US, and what works for us won't work for you.

Posted: 2/24/2012 9:24:17 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
[
IEDs are the greatest threat to Western troops in Afghanistan.

You're argument that a gun owner is the same as a sniper simply proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. Becoming a sniper takes more than a gun, it takes training and skill as well as equipment other than the rifle itself.
.

The rifle became a weapon of war due to the effect of rifles in the hands of American hunters using them in war. Sniping was a civilian invention.

Further, every gun owner doesn't have to be an effective sniper. Even a small percent can have a significant effect.

Posted: 2/24/2012 9:30:56 AM EDT

[#19]

Yeah, and that is why having an armed and able populace is a good thing.

What our government is saying, by trying to disarm us is that they want us to be dependant on them and unable to do it ourselves (whatever "it" is).

It isn't about guns, national defense, whatever. Its because they know they cannot conduct population control on the level that I know some of our government officials desire to.

If they were smart, they would foster an atmosphere of unity and such and try to paint being proficient in shooting to be a good thing......

The only option that I can say with complete confidence, is that they want us disarmed, and it isn't for the people's best interest......

Posted: 2/24/2012 9:32:40 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Look at how a two man sniper team terrorized and partially shut down Washington D.C. for a while.

Terrorized? Yes.

Partially shut down? No. Govt buildings, schools, and businesses were still open - you were just a bit more alert when filling the car up at the gas station and fewer people went out to eat.

Posted: 2/24/2012 9:34:58 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
An armoured force can't be stopped by small arms fire. Hunters aren't soldiers.

The fuel, food, and ammo trucks darn sure can be.

No, no. You can't stop a supply chain with anything less than nuclear weapons.

I will mention that you don't have to be a trained sniper to take a shot of opportunity and kill one invader. Not saying many fudds will be brave enough to take the shot though.

Posted: 2/24/2012 9:38:18 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
I got that e-mail too

I'm pretty sure I did too, but I only keep email for 5 years. Can't be sure.

Posted: 2/24/2012 9:39:07 AM EDT

[#23]

Yeah, but will the taxidermists be able to stuff and mount the sudden surge of Japanese being brought in on the roofs of cars?

Posted: 2/24/2012 9:42:50 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Supply lines would've been way too long to be sustainable.

Yep. Read about Rommel in North Africa for a perfect example of that, albeit on a smaller scale.

Posted: 2/24/2012 9:45:25 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Look at how a two man sniper team terrorized and partially shut down Washington D.C. for a while.

Terrorized? Yes.

Partially shut down? No. Govt buildings, schools, and businesses were still open - you were just a bit more alert when filling the car up at the gas station and fewer people went out to eat.

Now imagine 500 or 1000 such teams. The city would be paralyzed.

Look at one gunman was able to do at the CIA headquartes, Virginia Tech, and Fort Hood. Look at what two gunmen were able to do in North Hollywood.

Posted: 2/24/2012 10:00:57 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Now imagine 500 or 1000 such teams. The city would be paralyzed.

Look at one gunman was able to do at the CIA headquartes, Virginia Tech, and Fort Hood. Look at what two gunmen were able to do in North Hollywood.

I'm generally on your side on this, however, keep in mind the behaviour of the Japanese. They would not flinch at such losses.

What many are leaving out is the cultural differences between Americans, Japanese, Afgans, etc. Historically at least, Americans have fought in a dogged, linear manner. American settlers were remarkably resiliant in the face of horiffic indian attrocities, for example. You can see this trend in the Revolution, Civil War, Texas War of Independence, etc. American culture is not inclined towards a war of roadside IEDs, it may be part of it but culturally it would not be our core response.

At the same time, an enemy like the Japanese would not blink at individual sacrafice. Look at the damage they took during WW2; their navy gone, their air force gone, most cities firebombed, unable to fight us in open combat, yet it took two atomic bombs before they finally quit, and even then their military wanted to fight suffer on.

Posted: 2/24/2012 10:05:37 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
[Look at one gunman was able to do at the CIA headquartes, Virginia Tech, and Fort Hood. Look at what two gunmen were able to do in North Hollywood.

All against unarmed people (with the exception of N Hollywood cops).

Try that against a group of armed soldiers with a 'I don't give a fuck about collateral damage' attitude. You'll get a couple before you (and the block your in) is taken out.

Posted: 2/24/2012 10:38:58 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:Well, the oil tanks, ammo dumps, and drydocks were the first and foremost strategic assets.

Not according to Yamamoto or the naval staff: "He (Yamamoto) believed battleships possessed "intangible political effects internationally as a symbol of naval power." Sinking them, in tandem with capturing the Philippines, would so shock and demoralize the American people that their will to continue the war would sink along with the shattered battlewagons. The Japanese Naval General Staff wanted to sink battleships, too, but for a different reason: they calculated (from some faulty initial assumptions) that crippling four of the eight battleships in port would prevent the Pacific Fleet from sailing to relieve the Philippines for six months, allowing the Japanese to secure the flank of their southern advance.

And Yamamoto screwed up that call. Yes, battleships were symbols. But they were not strategic assets. The mistake that EVERYBODY who fights us makes is the same, they assume that our isolationist tendencies mean we won't fight. But if you piss us off, we'll fight. We'll also burn your shit down and make you glow in the dark. Blowing up the battleships pissed us off. The rest of the plan is valid, but if you take out the fuel dumps, those battleships aren't going anywhere. Neither is anything else. Attacking the ships first was a bad call, and did not show strategic thinking at all. In fact, his thinking is totally backwards. Nobody cares if you blow up an oil dump. Again, blow up a national symbol, and people will get pissed off.

Carriers number 2, Subs number 3, other ships number 4. On top of only destroying number 4, they didn't even get that right, sinking the ships in shallow water where they could be re-floated easily, and most were by mid-1942.

"Re-floated" =/= "usable". The Japanese goal was to put the battleship line out of commission to prevent it from interfereing with their activity in Asia or trying to implement 'War Plan Orange" (which was doubtlessly compromised by this time) and relieve the Phillipines. To do that, they only needed the BBs out of commission for 12 months or so, and they pretty much got that. Oklahoma never was repaired at all.

Several were repaired quickly. It was a decent tactical plan, (especially if they were planning an actual invasion) but it was a horrible strategic one.

During which time they also made us develop doctrine using the carrier as the pre-eminient power projection force.

Making a virtue out of a vice.

I, along with most people, disagree. Certainly the japanese, who were using carriers to attack Pearl, should have known better.

Oh, and they pissed off America so much that we made them glow in the dark. A brilliant strategic plan, right there.

Pearl harbor was a clusterfuck of unmitigated proportion for the Japanese.

Pearl Harbor did exactly what Yamamoto and the IJN staff wanted it to do. Their failure was one of psychology, as you point out, rather than execution.

The whole point of the attack was psychological. Fail at that, and the execution is meaningless. They got the exact opposite results of what they needed out of the attack. Instead of a damaged United states without the means our willingness to fight back, they got an enraged United States and did only limited damage to their attack force.

Really, it's such a failure, that sometimes I wonder if Yamamoto wanted to lose.

Posted: 2/24/2012 10:42:15 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:

An armoured force can't be stopped by small arms fire. Hunters aren't soldiers.

The fuel, food, and ammo trucks darn sure can be.

Hunters wouldn't pose a major threat against the logistics of an invading army. IEDs would pose a far greater threat as I have already stated over and over again in this thread.

I would submit the experiences of the Germans against partisans in France and Russia argues otherwise. Look at how a two man sniper team terrorized and partially shut down Washington D.C. for a while.

Regardless of using guns or IED's I think the civilian population would have made things quite unpleasant for a theoretical invasion. See Afghanistan for a demonstration of this. Certainly, the Japanese lack of a really capable armor corps would not have helped them out in such an event.

But all evidence is that the Japanese never really considered invading. They didn't want to, nor did they have the means to even consider it.

Posted: 2/24/2012 10:47:12 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Now imagine 500 or 1000 such teams. The city would be paralyzed.

Look at one gunman was able to do at the CIA headquartes, Virginia Tech, and Fort Hood. Look at what two gunmen were able to do in North Hollywood.

I'm generally on your side on this, however, keep in mind the behaviour of the Japanese. They would not flinch at such losses.

What many are leaving out is the cultural differences between Americans, Japanese, Afgans, etc. Historically at least, Americans have fought in a dogged, linear manner. American settlers were remarkably resiliant in the face of horiffic indian attrocities, for example. You can see this trend in the Revolution, Civil War, Texas War of Independence, etc. American culture is not inclined towards a war of roadside IEDs, it may be part of it but culturally it would not be our core response.

At the same time, an enemy like the Japanese would not blink at individual sacrafice. Look at the damage they took during WW2; their navy gone, their air force gone, most cities firebombed, unable to fight us in open combat, yet it took two atomic bombs before they finally quit, and even then their military wanted to fight suffer on.

Actually, IEDs, called "torpedoes", were used extensively by the South to slow Sherman' smarch - to the point that he had wagons full of surrendered Southern troops pushed ahead of his columns, to set them off. Also bombings were not unknown during the end otf the nineteenth century as part of the anarchist/socialist/union violence, and they re-appeared in the days of the Wearthmen, on up thorugh the World Trade Center and OKC bombings, not to mention the usual vagriated pipe-bomb nonsense that goes on.

As to Japan, there is a world of difference between fighting for and on your own soil, to defend your homeland, and fighting to invade and subjugate people unknown to you.

Posted: 2/24/2012 10:55:03 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted: Logistics, logistics, logistics. .

War is won and lost by logistics.

just because someone buys a hunting license doesn't mean they can/will fight

Posted: 2/24/2012 10:55:04 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:And Yamamoto screwed up that call. Yes, battleships were symbols. But they were not strategic assets. The mistake that EVERYBODY who fights us makes is the same, they assume that our isolationist tendencies mean we won't fight. But if you piss us off, we'll fight. We'll also burn your shit down and make you glow in the dark. Blowing up the battleships pissed us off. The rest of the plan is valid, but if you take out the fuel dumps, those battleships aren't going anywhere. Neither is anything else. Attacking the ships first was a bad call, and did not show strategic thinking at all. In fact, his thinking is totally backwards. Nobody cares if you blow up an oil dump. Again, blow up a national symbol, and people will get pissed off.

Fuel dumps can be replaced in part by moored tankers, and can be rebuilt much more quickly than a battleship. The whole point of the attack was to take the battleships out of action for a period of time. that's why they came.

Several were repaired quickly. It was a decent tactical plan, (especially if they were planning an actual invasion) but it was a horrible strategic one.

"Several" is not enough to support War Plan Orange or interfer with Japanese action. You have to have a certain mass, especially to engage in what are essentially offensive operations.

I, along with most people, disagree. Certainly the japanese, who were using carriers to attack Pearl, should have known better.

A sneak attack against a foe at peace is not a ringing endorsement for the viability of any particular mix of equipment.

The whole point of the attack was psychological. Fail at that, and the execution is meaningless. They got the exact opposite results of what they needed out of the attack. Instead of a damaged United states without the means our willingness to fight back, they got an enraged United States and did only limited damage to their attack force.

Really, it's such a failure, that sometimes I wonder if Yamamoto wanted to lose.

There is an element of truth to this, however, hindsight makes obvious things that are not to those there at the time.

Posted: 2/24/2012 11:40:43 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Why didn't they send ground troops into pearl harbor after the air attack? Did they have to keep their naval fleet close to Japan to maintain secrecy and couldn't reach Hawaii in time?

Busy taking over Phillipines. The Japs only had so many troops to use, and there were higher priority targets on their quest to conquer the Pacific rim.

Posted: 2/24/2012 11:46:12 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Friends and I were talking about this the other day.

Only it revolved around modern day Los Angeles.

While all the fat tards would get in the way I would hate to have to fight the street gangs. If somehow we could get them all one one side.

Then we raffed at little China men fighting Bloods, Crips, MS-13, ect...

Would be fun to watch!

People always say stuff like this.
My response is always

LOL. Yeah I can see mr tuff-guy street thug with his Jennings going up against a BN of Chineese soldiers with RPGs, automatic weapons, and arty support.

When fighting for their children and homes you can bet those gang members would fight as hard as you or I.

To me the only difference would be how orderly they did it and how they treated enemy prisoners.

Posted: 2/24/2012 12:00:39 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
[Look at one gunman was able to do at the CIA headquartes, Virginia Tech, and Fort Hood. Look at what two gunmen were able to do in North Hollywood.

All against unarmed people (with the exception of N Hollywood cops).

Try that against a group of armed soldiers with a 'I don't give a fuck about collateral damage' attitude. You'll get a couple before you (and the block your in) is taken out.

airstrikes and arty, then bypass the rubble

Posted: 2/24/2012 1:09:50 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
An armoured force can't be stopped by small arms fire. Hunters aren't soldiers.

The Japs had a pathetic armored force. They had no armored troop transports, and would not be able to advance their tanks without infantry support.

And their pathetic tanks would have been easier to destroy by improvised weapons then more advanced tanks used by other nations later in the war.

The US tradition of an armed public would have been a big advantage for the US. We have historically been able to quickly raise large, reasonably competent armies in part due to all those "aren't soldiers" you are talking about. Santa Anna's professional army was defeated by outnumbered "not soldiers", and in the Spanish American War our army went from 27k men to over 100k in about 6 months. Those 100k were not crack troops equal to the best professionals, but they were competent enough and were actually close to the pros in performance.

Sweden isn't the US, and what works for us won't work for you.

The Japs still had artillery and other support weapons.

Posted: 2/24/2012 1:10:49 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
[
IEDs are the greatest threat to Western troops in Afghanistan.

You're argument that a gun owner is the same as a sniper simply proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. Becoming a sniper takes more than a gun, it takes training and skill as well as equipment other than the rifle itself.
.

The rifle became a weapon of war due to the effect of rifles in the hands of American hunters using them in war. Sniping was a civilian invention.

Further, every gun owner doesn't have to be an effective sniper. Even a small percent can have a significant effect.

They might have an effect but they are unlikely to play a pivotal role.

Posted: 2/24/2012 1:37:49 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
An armoured force can't be stopped by small arms fire. Hunters aren't soldiers.

The Japs had a pathetic armored force. They had no armored troop transports, and would not be able to advance their tanks without infantry support.

And their pathetic tanks would have been easier to destroy by improvised weapons then more advanced tanks used by other nations later in the war.

The US tradition of an armed public would have been a big advantage for the US. We have historically been able to quickly raise large, reasonably competent armies in part due to all those "aren't soldiers" you are talking about. Santa Anna's professional army was defeated by outnumbered "not soldiers", and in the Spanish American War our army went from 27k men to over 100k in about 6 months. Those 100k were not crack troops equal to the best professionals, but they were competent enough and were actually close to the pros in performance.

Sweden isn't the US, and what works for us won't work for you.

The Japs still had artillery and other support weapons.

Which would have a very shaky support structure and have to be guarded constantly to prevent things like thermite "accidents"

Posted: 2/24/2012 1:39:48 PM EDT

[#39]

........

Posted: 2/24/2012 1:42:36 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:

We certainly didn't have 2 million men fighting the Germans on December 6th, 1941.

No, but we certainly has U.S. naval forces waging war on them.

But that's not all he said. He said we had a 2 million man army engaged with the Germans at the time.

Posted: 2/24/2012 1:43:20 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
An armoured force can't be stopped by small arms fire. Hunters aren't soldiers.

The fuel, food, and ammo trucks darn sure can be.

Hunters wouldn't pose a major threat against the logistics of an invading army. IEDs would pose a far greater threat as I have already stated over and over again in this thread.

Yes, you have stated it over and over. That still does not make it a fact.

Posted: 2/24/2012 1:45:56 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
"True story and most people will never know it. After the Japanese decimated our fleet in Pearl Harbor Dec. 7, 1941, They could have sent their troop ships and carriers directly to California to finish what they started. The prediction from our Chief of Staff was we would not be able to stop a massive invasion until they reached the Mississippi River. Remember, we hgad a 2 million man army and war ships... All fighting the Germans.

Where exactly was our army engaged in fighting the Germans on Dec 7th, 1941?

Just ask Bluto Blutarsky...he knows

Posted: 2/24/2012 1:51:25 PM EDT

[#43]

The war goal of the Imperial Japanese wasn't to conquer the United States; it was to force a negotiated settlement that would eliminate us as an important Pacific Power.

Likewise, they intended to defeat the European Colonial Powers and seize their possessions , in order to cement a Japanese hegonomy in the Pacific and most of Asia and had no illusions of invading and occupying Holland, France, or Great Britain.

Posted: 2/24/2012 1:52:49 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
"True story and most people will never know it. After the Japanese decimated our fleet in Pearl Harbor Dec. 7, 1941, They could have sent their troop ships and carriers directly to California to finish what they started. The prediction from our Chief of Staff was we would not be able to stop a massive invasion until they reached the Mississippi River. Remember, we hgad a 2 million man army and war ships... All fighting the Germans.

This is a bullshit chain email. We weren't even close to fighting Germans until late in 1942.

Posted: 2/24/2012 1:52:52 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
An armoured force can't be stopped by small arms fire. Hunters aren't soldiers.

The fuel, food, and ammo trucks darn sure can be.

Hunters wouldn't pose a major threat against the logistics of an invading army. IEDs would pose a far greater threat as I have already stated over and over again in this thread.

Yes, you have stated it over and over. That still does not make it a fact.

The recent actions in Iraq and Afghanistan would seem to back up his assertion. The majority of of causualties caused by insurgents and taliban are from IEDs not small arms.

Posted: 2/24/2012 1:55:01 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
An armoured force can't be stopped by small arms fire. Hunters aren't soldiers.

The fuel, food, and ammo trucks darn sure can be.

Hunters wouldn't pose a major threat against the logistics of an invading army. IEDs would pose a far greater threat as I have already stated over and over again in this thread.

Yes, you have stated it over and over. That still does not make it a fact.

The recent actions in Iraq and Afghanistan would seem to back up his assertion. The majority of of causualties caused by insurgents and taliban are from IEDs not small arms.

Not really. AQ doesn't have the numbers we have.

Posted: 2/24/2012 1:57:23 PM EDT

[#47]